Legalpedia Citation: (2023-06) Legalpedia 37167 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION

Fri Mar 17, 2023

Suit Number: CA/KN/223/2020

CORAM

Boloukuromo Moses Ugo JCA

Usman Alhaji Musale JCA

PARTIES

AMINU ABDULLAHI

APPELLANTS

FATIMA UMAR

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONTRACT, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PROPERTY LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant (plaintiff at the trial court – Kano State High Court) claimed ownership of the property lying and situate at House Link 6 – 32 Mallam Ibrahim Mai-Jama’a Street, Hausawa Quarters, Kano and sought the court to enforce his claims against the Respondent.

The respondent counter-claimed seeking the court to establish the claim and for a perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff and everyone representing him.

The trial court dismissed the claim of the Plaintiff and granted the Counter-claim by the Defendant.

The appellant was aggrieved by the decision hence the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

RATIONES DECIDENDI

REPLY BRIEF – APPELLANT CANNOT INTRODUCE A DIFFERENT CLAIM BY MEANS OF REPLY BRIEF

Appellant cannot introduce a different claim by means of Reply Brief and is not permitted to argue a different case by Reply Brief, different from what he presented in his original Brief of argument. Appellant is not also permitted to re-argue his Brief (case) by means of the Reply Brief, to improve his position and/or re-enforce or strengthen his case. See the case of Govt of Enugu State of Nigeria Vs Sunday Onya & Ors (2021) LPELR – 52688 (CA):

“Appellants’ Reply Brief, filed on 18/7/2017, appeared to be a complete rehash of the Appellants’ brief, and done in a way that appeared to be a fresh argument of the Appeal. A Reply brief is not meant to give a second chance to argue appeal, but to respond to fresh points of law, raised in Respondent’s brief, which were not contemplated in the Appellants Brief. See the case of Iheka vs Njoku (2017) LPELR-42002 CA; Akayepe & Anor vs Akayepe (2009) LPELR-326 (SC); Mathew vs State (2019) LPELR-46930 (SC); Akwaiwu & Anor vs Akwaiwu & Ors (2020) LPELR 51954 (CA).”

See also Suleiman Vs State (2022) LPELR – 57577 (SC):

“The purpose of a Reply brief is to address any new issues raised in the appellant’s (sic) brief. See: Abdullahi Vs The Military Administrator, Kaduna State & Ors. (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417; Gwede Vs Delta State House of Assembly & Anor (2019) LPELR-4744 (SC) @ 17 A-B; Titilayo Plastic Ind. Ltd. & Ors vs Fagbola (2019) LPELR-47606 (SC) @ 74 A-D.” Per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC. – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA

PROOF OF TITLE – FIVE WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

The law relating to proof of title to land/property has been elaborately stated by the Counsel on each side of this appeal, as per the decided cases, namely:

(1) By traditional evidence;

(2) By production of document of title;

(3) By act of possession extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner.

(4) Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land

(5) Proof of possession of the connected or adjacent land in such circumstances rendering probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.

See the case of Orlu Vs Gogo (2010) 1 SCNJ 322; Odunze Vs Nwosu & Ors (2007) LPELR – 2252; and Otukpo Vs John & Anor (2012) LPELR – 25053 (SC), where it was held:

“The five ways of proving title to land in an action for declaration of title are tied to the root of title of the claimant/plaintiff in the sense that it is the way the plaintiff/claimant proves or establishes his root of title. In short, the root of title of a plaintiff maybe traceable to/or through the traditional/historical evidence of the people/land in question, or through the documents conferring title on the plaintiff or through acts of ownership exercised by the plaintiff and/or his predecessor(s) in title, or by acts of long possession and undisturbed possession or by proving that the plaintiff/claimant is in possession of adjacent or connected land such as to raise a strong possibility that the land in dispute must of necessity belong to the plaintiff/claimant.” Per ONNOGHEN, JSC

Of course, out of the various ways of proving title to land, the one that appears quite simple and easy to make is where title documents of the land is available and produced. See Aigbobahi Vs Aifuwa & Ors (2006) LPELR – 267 (SC):

“In an action for declaration of title to land, as in the instant case, a plaintiff need not prove all the five ways. Where the plaintiff’s case is based on traditional evidence of ownership as the legal basis of his claim, his duty is limited to proving such traditional title and no more. On the other hand, if a plaintiff’s claim relies on conveyance as the legal basis of ownership his duty is, simply to produce the documents of the title or the title deeds. The same thing applies where he claims through any of the other remaining three ways.” Per ONNOGHEN, JSC

​See also the case of Korie Vs Ifenkwe (2018) LPELR – 44987 CA:

Of all the five known ways of acquiring land, I think the most potent and less stressful is by production of document of title. The five ways of proving title are richly stated in our laws. See Idundun Vs Okumagba(1976) 9-10 SC 227; Atanda Vs Ajani (1989) NWLR (Pt.111) 511; (1989) LPELR-89 (SC); Ayorinde and Ors Vs Sogunro & Ors (2012) LPELR-7808 SC. We however know that the mere production of document of title especially certificate of occupancy is not automatic evidence of proof of title as the same must support the case or claim of the Plaintiff. But the law is also that:

“the production of the deed of title, such as certificate of occupancy, in a claim, where the claimant pleads ownership by granting of title, is sufficient and prima facie proof of his title, until the adverse party proves better title.” See Group Captain Ogah Rtd and Another Vs Mallam Garba Ali Gidado & Ors (2013) LPELR-20298 (CA); Lateju Vs Fabayo (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt.1304) 159 at 179; Kaigama Vs Namnai (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt.495) 549; Madu Vs Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt.1083). – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

The law is trite, that documentary evidence speaks for itself, and one does not require oral or parole evidence to alter, explain, or contradict the contents of documentary evidence. See Ukoabasi vs Nwabueze (2017) LPELR-420 (CA):

“The law is trite that no oral evidence can be admitted to contradict, add to or vary the content of documentary evidence before the Court. See Section 128 (1) of the Evidence Act: “When a judgment of a Court or any other judicial or official proceeding, contract or any grant or other disposition of property has been reduced to form of a document or series of document, no evidence may be given of such judgment or proceedings or of the terms of such contract, grant or disposition of property, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under this act: nor may the contents of any such document be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by oral evidence.

See also Ayorinde vs Kuforiji (2022) LPELR- 56600(SC):

“A reiteration of the law is that when any transaction or contract of any grant or other disposition of property has been reduced to the form of document or series of documents, no oral evidence shall be admissible in order to vary or contradict the contents of such document. The documents speak for themselves. See (38) UNION BANK OF NIGERIA V PROFESSOR OZIGI (1994) 3 S.C.N.J 42 AT 55. ANYAEGBUNAM V. OSAKA (2000) 10 WRN 108 At 203 S.C. ADELAJA v. FANOIKI (1990) 21 NSCC PAR 1 PAGE 343. It is settled in law that a written contractional agreement cannot be varied by parole evidence nor altered by oral evidence” Per PETER-ODILI, JSC. – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA

CASES CITED

Ø  Whether the trial Judge was right to give judgment to Respondent as per her Counter-claim, and to dismiss the Appellant’s claim, based on the documentary evidence that carried the name of Respondent as the owner of the property.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

11. Evidence Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT